Oops. Thanks, good catch. I like your solutions, but for some reason I stubbornly want to keep trying my own. How about"Attacking creatures you control with trample get +2/+0.Prevent the first 2 damage that would be dealt to each attacking creature you control each combat."Ugh. It's ugly, and I'm not even 100% sure it's templated properly, and it has weird interactions with Phantom Nantuko and/or Leyline of Punishment. Also, as you noted for your alternate suggestion, it gets awkward when Stonebrow dies after attackers have been declared.

Actually, the more I look at these "fixes" to it, the more I realise WotC probably knew what they were doing and I should just leave it alone. The problem with your first suggestion is that it doesn't work when Stonebrow doesn't attack. This means no more turn 4 Giant Solifuge, attack for 4, turn 5 Stonebrow, attack for 6. It also means no bonus at all if Stonebrow gets hit by Faith's Fetters. While these are pretty insignificant sacrifices (both in terms of game play and in terms of flavor), the advantage of doing it this way is seems even less significant.

Maybe the way MODO treats it is actually the best:"Whenever one or more creatures you control with trample attack, creatures you control with trample get +2/+2 until end of turn."

Whenever a creature you control attacks, if it has trample it gets +2/+2 until end of turn."

Would work for that implementation, since the trigger would be on any attacking creature, and it would only check for trample on resolution.

Actually, there's a weird rule in Magic that causes this to fail:

Comp Rules wrote:

603.4. A triggered ability may read "When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect]." When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn't true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the "intervening 'if' clause" rule. (The word "if" has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an "if" that immediately follows a trigger condition.)Example: Felidar Sovereign reads, "At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have 40 or more life, you win the game." Its controller's life total is checked as that player's upkeep begins. If that player has 39 or less life, the ability doesn't trigger at all. If that player has 40 or more life, the ability triggers and goes on the stack. As the ability resolves, that player's life total is checked again. If that player has 39 or less life at this time, the ability is removed from the stack and has no effect. If that player has 40 or more life at this time, the ability resolves and that player wins the game.

Treamayne wrote:

Is the goal to have creatures be able to gain Trample with Stonebrow's ability on the stack so they can get the bonus? Or just to make it one trigger, instead of 1 trigger per creature? (Or Both)

Both, ideally. But the more I look at it the more it seems unnecessary.

Is the goal to have creatures be able to gain Trample with Stonebrow's ability on the stack so they can get the bonus? Or just to make it one trigger, instead of 1 trigger per creature? (Or Both)

Both, ideally. But the more I look at it the more it seems unnecessary.

Copy all, so....

Treamayne wrote:

"Whenever a creature you control attacks, attacking creatures you control with trample get +2/+2 until end of turn."

That one shoudl still work, sinceit is a single trigger for all creatures. Triggered when at least one creaure attacks, resolves giving all attackers with trample the bonus and has time to respond to the trigger with effects that give trample.

Except that each creature with trample you control will get +2/+2 for each creature that attacks. Should be, "Whenever one or more creatures you control attack, attacking creatures you control with trample get +2/+2 until end of turn."

"Whenever one or more creatures you control attack, attacking creatures you control with trample get +2/+2 until end of turn."

Which, again, is almost identical to how MODO does it, except that it won't trigger if none of the attackers have trample to begin with. Here's what I suggested (based on MODO's interpretation) at the top of this page:

intreped wrote:

"Whenever one or more creatures you control with trample attack, creatures you control with trample get +2/+2 until end of turn."

Wouldn't it be simpler if it was, "Attacking creatures you control with trample get +2/+2 until end of turn."? Similar to Windbrisk Raptor.

No, Windbrisk Raptor is a different thing. It only cares about creatures while they're attacking. Putting an "until end of turn" on the end of it doesn't work in the rules, it would still cease to be recognized after combat.

All the talk about Gifts in Rules Discussion makes me want to do this:

Heck-of Gifts Ungiven - 3UInstantSearch your library for eight cards and reveal them. For each of them, an opponent chooses your hand, your graveyard, the bottom of your library, or exile. They cannot choose the same destination more than twice. Shuffle your library, then move each card to its chosen destination.

Heck-of Gifts Ungiven - 3UInstantSearch your library for eight cards and reveal them. For each of them, an opponent chooses your hand, your graveyard, the bottom of your library, or exile. They cannot choose the same destination more than twice. Shuffle your library, then move each card to its chosen destination.

Huh, I honestly couldn't remember why I disliked Gifts Ungiven in commander (its been a very long while since I've seen it being banned and all) until I saw this.I now recall that the thing about Gifts that annoyed me is that when someone isn't using it to get a premeditated package of cards (aka being "fair"), it takes for-freaking-ever to resolve. We all know the guy who spends five minutes on a Demonic Tutor, and Gifts is four of those plus the mind games and politicking... I think I would rather see the original than the version you proposed (not saying it isn't a fair or interesting card, there are just certain people I would not want to wait for them to resolve this monstrosity). I think it might even come close to the Thieves' Auction level of time sink in commander depending on who is in the game.

Heck-of Gifts Ungiven - 3UInstantSearch your library for eight cards and reveal them. For each of them, an opponent chooses your hand, your graveyard, the bottom of your library, or exile. They cannot choose the same destination more than twice. Shuffle your library, then move each card to its chosen destination.

Would it be clearer as something like:

Quote:

Search your library for up to eight cards with different names and reveal them. Target opponent separates them into four piles of two. For each pile that player chooses one that hasn't been chosen:- Exile the pile- Put the pile into its owners graveyard- Shuffle the pile into its owners library- Put the pile in its owners hand

Conversely, it could be more interesting and interactive in multiplayer as something like:

Quote:

Search your library for up to eight cards with different names and reveal them. Target opponent chooses two cards, exile those cards. Target opponent chooses two cards, shuffle those cards into your library. Target opponent chooses two cards, put those cards into your graveyard, then put the remaining cards revealed this way into your hand.

Interesting idea, though I would never play it. I think I prefer the "reveal from top of library" versions (e.g. Mulch) over the "trixy tutor" bunch.

Coco also makes a point, though I don't often see this type of card taking very long to resolve on MTGO. I can't see things like this possibly being as bad of a time sink as things like SDT; though that is admittedly very play-group dependent.

I think it might even come close to the Thieves' Auction level of time sink in commander depending on who is in the game.

Yeah, I guess I was only thinking about it in the context of a trusted playgroup, where if someone is taking forever to decide 8 cards or where to put them, the table just reminds them "come on, we're all waiting for you" and then the game proceeds. In the context of a friendly game with unknowns at a local shop, maybe this is not the best implementation.

(also, confession, I happen to love Thieves' Auction)

Treamayne wrote:

Would it be clearer as something like:

Quote:

Search your library for up to eight cards with different names and reveal them. Target opponent separates them into four piles of two. For each pile that player chooses one that hasn't been chosen:- Exile the pile- Put the pile into its owners graveyard- Shuffle the pile into its owners library- Put the pile in its owners hand

Conversely, it could be more interesting and interactive in multiplayer as something like:

Quote:

Search your library for up to eight cards with different names and reveal them. Target opponent chooses two cards, exile those cards. Target opponent chooses two cards, shuffle those cards into your library. Target opponent chooses two cards, put those cards into your graveyard, then put the remaining cards revealed this way into your hand.

The problem with your first suggestion is that it's ambiguous what happens when there aren't eight cards found (which can be done deliberately by Gifts' caster because of the "with different names" modifier; although that's not why I left that modifier out of my suggested fix). So, if Gifts' caster finds four cards, normally the rules would say 'try to do as much of the instructions as possible', but in this case, are four piles of one each the most possible? Or would two piles of two each be the most?

The way I phrased it, even if there are only 4 cards left in the player's library upon casting Gifts, the opponent clearly has the option to choose whatever distribution, so long as no three cards go to the same place.

I like your second suggestion.

Here's another thought experiment, would it be broken if instead of shuffling or tucking, two of the cards went to the top of your library? Let's leave out the 'different names' modifier, so you could use it to find eight Islands or eight Relentless Rats (or in a different format you might prefer four Misthollow Griffins and four Eternal Scourges). It sounds pretty strong, and in a 'fair' use it's probably actually better than the real Gifts Ungiven - if all you do with it is choose your strongest cards, it's a Gifts that also makes your next two draws really good with the only downside being that you exiled two cards from your library you weren't necessarily going to draw into anyway. Yet . . . the fact that an opponent can choose to exile the two you would want most makes me feel like this would actually see less play in this format than a hypothetical unbanned Gifts would. At the very least it makes combo packages far trickier to force. What do y'all think?